- Ammar Campa-Najjar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
After an AfD discussion, Ammar Campa-Najjar page was replaced with a redirect link to 'United States House of Representatives elections in California'. The situation and notability has significantly changed since that discussion. Following the indictment of his opponent, Campa-Najjar has received a boatload of national and international news coverage. The latest polling indicates that he is tied with the incumbent in what was formerly thought to be a guaranteed GOP district. Please just take a look at some of the many articles published about him in the past few weeks. It is getting rather ridiculous that he does not have a Wikipedia page at this point. User 'Butwhatdoiknow' therefore tried to start a new version of the article, but edits were then blocked by an administrator. That administrator 'Luk' and the user 'Ansh666', who closed the AfD discussion, both recommend the page for a 'Deletion Review'. B P G PhD (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from the first AfD, Unelected political candidates ... must be able to achieve widespread coverage independent and unrelated to their campaign or candidacy. It would be useful if you could translate, a boatload of national and international news coverage into a list of specific references which meet that requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the outcomes of the first two AfDs. They were clearly closed correctly. If there's been new coverage since the second AfD I'd have no objection to it being recreated, but we would need to see those sources first. Reyk YO! 07:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse clearly correct outcome, no prejudice to a sourced draft if there is genuinely new and significant coverage that's too big for the article on the election race itself. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A short list of really good references would be better than a boatload of anything. Thincat (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The deletion discussions have been closed correctly. Let's see the new coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. WP:NPOL has consensus. Candidates not subject to independent reliable secondary source coverage do not get their own page, regardless of mentions in newscoverage, abundance of promotional material and interviews, and reliable sources showing that they are running, and what their previous job was. I wondered, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#A_resource_for_political_activists_and_candidates?, whether people wanting to document candidates could be sent somewhere, but I am not finding anywhere suitable. Incumbency has advantages, sorry, but Wikipedia does not right these wrongs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There is now enough coverage. Even in an ordinary election year,the candidates of both major US parties will always get substantial coverage, even if they are not the incumbents. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I voted in the AfD, but I looked for news sources. His opponent was recently indicted, which generated some coverage of his political race. I don't see why there's a fight for this article when there's no additional coverage of the campaign in the place where the article was redirected toward, especially considering the WP:PROMO concerns we have for candidates who have not yet participated in a general election. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, with no prejudice against recreating the page in draftspace, or in mainspace if sourcing clearly meets Notability guidelines. The AfD seems to be closed correctly, though if notability has changed then recreating the page is in order. Taking it through AfC, or some other peer review process, may remove doubts as to the state of its notability.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
